Koschitzke 2 weeks. Corey 0 weeks.

[PieBeast]

They were ball one action, both players landed shoulder then head.

That maybe so but the most critical part here is the difference in trajectories and points of impact. Corey spun Steven for about 180 degrees while Kozi more or less simply dumped Duncan.

 

[The Punter]

You have to go back to 2006 to see the seeds of the Baker saga.

In 2006 Baker was suspended for two weeks for attempting to strike Greg Stafford. Let's forgo the ludicrous nature of a 178cm guy being suspended for trying to hit a 203cm bloke. Baker was suspended for not hitting a guy. Considering numerous players (I'm looking at you, Cameron Ling) have had charges thrown out due to "insufficient force to warrant a report", you could imagine that not even touching the bloke would be "insufficient force".

Then AFL incompetence intrudes. Baker is suspended for two separate incidents in early 2007, both attracting about 160 activation points. But instead of suspending Baker for three weeks, they suspended him for two weeks, leaving him with one week hanging over his head even if he attracts the smallest number of activation points possible (such as a low-level tripping offence which often attracts 40 activation points).

The Farmer incident has been well documented, but it does warrant mentioning that Ben Johnson effectively ended Daniel Bell's career, and could have left him in a wheelchair, in that same week and was playing AFL football before Baker was able to, after Baker was suspended for seven weeks for not moving.

We all know what happened after that. It's a house of cards, and I, for one, cannot wait until they seriously wrong the Collingwood Football Club and that renowned hothead Eddie Maguire hires a QC to bring down this kangaroo court.

 

[PieBeast]

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

Well Gary Lyon, Robert Walls and Paul Roos have all agreed that Kosi shouldn't have been suspended for that tackle and that Corey's tackle was more dangerous. Are they all wrong too?

So they should hand out suspensions based on the possibility of injury?

Slippery slope there. They might be right that it was a more dangerous tackle, but it didn't do more damage.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

So they should hand out suspensions based on the possibility of injury?

Slippery slope there. They might be right that it was a more dangerous tackle, but it didn't do more damage.

How do you know it didnt do more damage. Based on over the airwaves medical observations?

Interestingly out in the real world. You are penalised for speeding or driving pissed, or both at the same time, because of the possibility of causing injury. There is little evidence to suggest that everytime someone drives over 0.05 they will cause an injury and there are probably some drivers who will never cause an injury even when they frequently drive drunk.
The penalties are however much more severe when the actual injury occurs. No consistency in the law though, the guy who r*ped the 14year old and set fire to her wont get as severe a sentence as he would if she'd died, so his punishment comes down to competence of the attending doctors.


You are correct though, if everyone was suspended based on the possibility of injury no-one would set foot on the football field.

I am shuddering to think of the Brownlow of the future though, the candidates will consist of only the most wishy washy outside players left over after all the good but invalidated players are taken out.

 

[gPhonque]

So they should hand out suspensions based on the possibility of injury?

Slippery slope there. They might be right that it was a more dangerous tackle, but it didn't do more damage.

So if I shoot a gun at you and miss, that's ok.... I should get off because I didn't cause any damage?

But if we accidentally bump into each other and you crack your head open and die, I should get life?

Hmmmm.

Glad you're not on the MRP. (or maybe you are?)

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

So if I shoot a gun at you and miss, that's ok.... I should get off because I didn't cause any damage?

But if we accidentally bump into each other and you crack your head open and die, I should get life?

Hmmmm.

Glad you're not on the MRP. (or maybe you are?)

Exactly.

 

[The Passenger]

jaw saw the corey, koschitzke and mumford tackles... can't believe any have been looked at.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

So if I shoot a gun at you and miss, that's ok.... I should get off because I didn't cause any damage?

But if we accidentally bump into each other and you crack your head open and die, I should get life?

Hmmmm.

Glad you're not on the MRP. (or maybe you are?)

It's a murder analogy!

 

[Hump 17]

It's a murder analogy!

Why the hell do you care? Your player got off which is great for you and doesn't effect StKilda as we have played you. So why do you care that Kosi got well and truly shafted? Surely you can't believe it was justified or are you being a arguementive flog?

 

[m0zza]

I don't think there was much difference between the tackles at all. The difference between landing headfirst and having your head whipped after your shoulder contacts is minimal, two different types of contact with about the same potential for damage.

How did corey pin a guys arms and yet apparently speartackle him as well? Is there a youtube of it?

Wrapped him up, shifted hips below him, and the threw him head first at the turf.
Worse than the others... but all three were dangerous in that the tacklers threw their victims using the tacklers hips as a fulcrum. (Rather like a judo throw)

Corey's was a dangerous tackle in ARL that would have been penalized.
The other two would have been good tackles in ARL.
Point is that we aren't talking about thugby league, in AFL there is NO advantage in tackling players to the ground.

 

[gPhonque]

It's a murder analogy!

It's exactly the same principle.

You seem to think that if damage isn't caused, then there is no case to answer. Yet players have been booked (and rubbed out) for "attempted striking" (which is still listed by the AFL as an offence I might point out) for as long as I've been watching football.

This year in particular, things seem to have done a 180. You can try to kill somebody if you want, and if you fail, then all is good.

But don't you dare accidentally cause any damage to another player with a good hard tackle or you'll be rubbed out!

It's ridiculous.

As I said in another thread, next they'll be suspending players for kicking goals, as they seem to be penalising players for doing everything else they've been taught to do throughout their entire footballing lives.

 

[Falchoon]

They were ball one action, both players landed shoulder then head.

yep

Duncan -hip then shoulder then head
Steven - shoulder then head then hip

 

[Strahany]

I'd like the AFL to come out with a statement explaining how Koschitzke should have laid a tackle in that situation.

He was standing still with Duncan running at him. Looking purely at momentum and forces, it would be near impossible for Koschitzke to lay a tackle in one fluid motion. Any force in a sideways motion to tackle would not have been sufficient enough to prevent Duncan from running straight into Koschitzke. Hence, Koschitzke had to exert force directly against Duncan (holding his ground) so that he slowed down enough for Koschitzke's sideways force to be large enough to initiate the tackle.

This tackle was no different to any other tackle in terms of how the player landed, and Duncan could have been hurt in exactly the same manner. The AFL are cracking down on it as they believe it to be a sling due to the "two motions". In any other situation, two motions constitutes a dangerous sling tackle, but in this instance it is the only way Koschitzke could have tackled.

As people have said, what is Koschitzke meant to do in that situation?

• Should he have left Duncan alone? Obviously not.
• Should he have bumped him? No. Koschitzke did the right thing in not bumping him considering the height difference. He should be praised for not going the bump here - it could really have hurt the kid.

The only thing Koschitzke should have done in that situation is tackle, and he did a perfect one at that. By the points system his suspension was indeed correct - as was the other penalties. But it certainly shouldn't have garnered any points in the first place.

 

[Dean3]

Probably swimming against the tide here, but I reckon that these tackles where the arms are pinned all the way to the ground and the player is helpless to stop head contact with the ground are a relatively recent phenomena.

This talk from players about "changing the way we have to tackle after 20 years of learning" is crap.

I've coached junior footy and seen a fair bit of football over 40-odd years, and players have never been "taught" to pin arms all the way to the ground whilst gaining maximum centrifugal force to bounce an opponent's head into the turf. Sure, they've been taught to bring the player down, but more by dropping to your knees and turning him to the side, so as not to infringe in the back - even finish up on the bottom with your opponent on top of you.

These days players are so strong through the core, they can take and stand up in tackles so much better than they did even 5 years ago (and certainly 10 years ago), plus they are so much better at getting the ball off to their team's advantage in a tackle, that players almost have to sling tackle to bring a player down these days. Hence we are seeing more and more of them, and more players are coming off groggy or unconscious. Add to that the relatively new approach to rotations where being one player down is much more significant than it used to be, and you have the conditions created for more of these tackles to take place.

I think the AFL is right to take a no-nonsense perhaps even slightly over the top approach to the sling tackles.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

Probably swimming against the tide here, but I reckon that these tackles where the arms are pinned all the way to the ground and the player is helpless to stop head contact with the ground are a relatively recent phenomena.

This talk from players about "changing the way we have to tackle after 20 years of learning" is crap.

I've coached junior footy and seen a fair bit of football over 40-odd years, and players have never been "taught" to pin arms all the way to the ground whilst gaining maximum centrifugal force to bounce an opponent's head into the turf. Sure, they've been taught to bring the player down, but more by dropping to your knees and turning him to the side, so as not to infringe in the back - even finish up on the bottom with your opponent on top of you.

These days players are so strong through the core, they can take and stand up in tackles so much better than they did even 5 years ago (and certainly 10 years ago), plus they are so much better at getting the ball off to their team's advantage in a tackle, that players almost have to sling tackle to bring a player down these days. Hence we are seeing more and more of them, and more players are coming off groggy or unconscious. Add to that the relatively new approach to rotations where being one player down is much more significant than it used to be, and you have the conditions created for more of these tackles to take place.

I think the AFL is right to take a no-nonsense perhaps even slightly over the top approach to the sling tackles.

A few others including myself have expressed similar sentiment in this thread, but we tend to get ignored in favour of sensationalism.

 

[The Punter]

I think players should be held accountable for what they do, and what Kosi did and what Corey did were almost identical.

I think many people have a problem with the penalty being decided on the unpredictability of how someone reacts to a similar action. Jack Steven's head is harder than Mitch Duncan's, so Kosi gets an extra week (before previous records are taken into account).

The most damaging collision of Saturday night belonged to James Podsiadly. Jumping in a marking contest often leads to unintended contact to the head. This is where the rule will eventually go if the AFL desires consistency, which is yet to be determined.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

I think players should be held accountable for what they do, and what Kosi did and what Corey did were almost identical.

I think many people have a problem with the penalty being decided on the unpredictability of how someone reacts to a similar action. Jack Steven's head is harder than Mitch Duncan's, so Kosi gets an extra week (before previous records are taken into account).

The most damaging collision of Saturday night belonged to James Podsiadly. Jumping in a marking contest often leads to unintended contact to the head. This is where the rule will eventually go if the AFL desires consistency, which is yet to be determined.

Oh god.

There is no practical difference between the heads of Stevens and Duncan.

The whiplash action of Duncan's tackle caused his head to hit the ground with much more force than the straight impact of Stevens'. It's not hard to understand.

 

[mcuzzy]

joke of a sport, i don't even care anymore

 

[Plugger35]

Oh god.

There is no practical difference between the heads of Stevens and Duncan.

The whiplash action of Duncan's tackle caused his head to hit the ground with much more force than the straight impact of Stevens'. It's not hard to understand.

For god's sakes give it up.

Almost every neutral supporter and media commentator has said that the Kosi suspension was a joke and that Corey's tackle was the more dangerous tackle as there was potential for a neck injury, in case you aren't aware the risk of being paralysed is a bit more serious than the risk of a concussion. The actual outcome from those two tackles should be irrelevent to the suspensions handed out. Corey just got lucky that Steven got up OK.

I'm not saying Corey deserved to be suspended but the fact that Kosi was suspended for two weeks for a less dangerous tackle is an absolute joke. There's just no consistency whatsoever.

 

[The Punter]

Sorry, forgot to use sarcasm font.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Oh god.

There is no practical difference between the heads of Stevens and Duncan.

The whiplash action of Duncan's tackle caused his head to hit the ground with much more force than the straight impact of Stevens'. It's not hard to understand.

Off topic, Pet hate. STEVEN NOT STEVENS
Its not hard even for some of you with low IQ. What is the point of knowing where to put the ' if you got it wrong in the first place. His name has been mentioned in this thread before, did you assume everyone else got it wrong?
Do you go around calling Davey Davies, or Smith Smiths or Ng Ngs.
Ahhhh, much better with that out of my system.

Apart from that most people recognise that the Steven impact has more potential for kneck damage.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

Off topic, Pet hate. STEVEN NOT STEVENS
Its not hard even for some of you with low IQ. What is the point of knowing where to put the ' if you got it wrong in the first place. His name has been mentioned in this thread before, did you assume everyone else got it wrong?
Do you go around calling Davey Davies, or Smith Smiths or Ng Ngs.
Ahhhh, much better with that out of my system.

Apart from that most people recognise that the Steven impact has more potential for kneck damage.

rofl, kneck. I took a guess, it was wrong. Seriously, who gives a shit.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

For god's sakes give it up.

Almost every neutral supporter and media commentator has said that the Kosi suspension was a joke and that Corey's tackle was the more dangerous tackle as there was potential for a neck injury, in case you aren't aware the risk of being paralysed is a bit more serious than the risk of a concussion. The actual outcome from those two tackles should be irrelevent to the suspensions handed out. Corey just got lucky that Steven got up OK.

I'm not saying Corey deserved to be suspended but the fact that Kosi was suspended for two weeks for a less dangerous tackle is an absolute joke. There's just no consistency whatsoever.

It's perfectly consistent, when will you actually pay attention to the reasons behind the result, instead of just being outraged for the hell of it?

The tackles are like this. Steven had a 1% chance of severe injury (break), 30% chance of concussion.

Duncan had 0% chance of severe, 90% chance of concussion.

All figures guesstimations of course, but you'll find that most previous tackles that earned suspensions were where the head was whipped into the ground, following the body.

That's just the way it is. Physics, kinetics, fact.

 

[Falchoon]

Probably swimming against the tide here, but I reckon that these tackles where the arms are pinned all the way to the ground and the player is helpless to stop head contact with the ground are a relatively recent phenomena.

Tackles are rewarded a lot more than previously in terms of holding the ball/incorrect disposal and tacklers have adjusted accordingly but players like Aaron Hamill were definitely using the art of pinning the arms back 10+ years ago.